DEPUTY ASSTT. IRON & STEEL CONTROLLER & ANR. versus MANICKCHAND, PROPRIETOR, KATRELLA CORPN. MADRAS

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 05-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DEPUTY ASSTr. IRON & STEEL CONTROLLER & ANR. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
fl 
y. 
L. MANICKCHAND, PROPRIETOR, KATRELLA 
CORPN. MADRAS 
January 5, 1972 
METAL 
(J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DuA, H. R. KHANNA AND G. K. MITTER, 11.J 
Import Trade Control 
PoliGv-Appllcation for import 
licence-I/ 
<hould comidered in term. of the 
policy in force at the time of appli-
cation or at the time of grant of licence. 
In December, 1968 the respondent &~plied for an import licence for 
importing stainless steel for the licensing period 1968-69. The registra· 
lion certificate certified that he was engaged in the manufacture of hospital 
and surgical instruments and household utensils of stainless steel. Ac· 
cording to the import policy for· 1968-69 no priority was available for 
household utensils. 
Since the number of applicants for import licences 
for stainless steel, which was a sensitive item, was very large instructions 
were issued in January 1%9 that the applications should be scrutim.ed 
carefully after asking for information from applicants as to details of end 
products to be manufactured by an applicant. In May 1969 the res-
pondent stated that the hospital requisttes intended to be manufactured 
by him were surgical bowls, spittoons and trays. 
The Chief Controller, 
Imports and Exports. issued instructions that only 'medical and surgical , 
equipment and appliances' should have priority and not other types of 
hospital equipment such as bowls, trays, jugs etc. In April 1970, after 
a review of the situation the Chief Controllerlissued instructions to consi .. 
der the respondent
9s application in 
terms of the 
licensing policy for 
197t. 71. 
The respondent filed an application for the issue of a writ of rnandamru 
and the High Court allowed it directing that .the respondent's application 
may be dealt with in terms of the 1968-69 import policy. 
In appeal, on tho question whether the application should be consi-
dered in accordance with the policy in force when the licence was granted 
or when the application was made. 
HELD: No case had been made out for a mandamus to consider 
the respondent's application in terms of 196&-69 policy, since there waa 
no undue !aches or delay in dealing with the respondent's application. 
and the instructions of the Chief Controller to consider the a~· 
cation 
in terms df 197~71 policy l\'a& in accordance with para 91 of 
, IV 
of the Import Trade Control Handbook of Rules and Procedure. {l 168). 
[18 ~· 
Speedy disposal of applications for import licences is of ~t impor-
tance in order that available foreign exchange may be utilized Without 
delay; but, it is also to be borne in mind, that in the pment stage of 
JI o1lr industrial development. imports requiring foreisn exChange hne , tO 
be cootrolled and regulated to prevent abuses of. import quota. Thill. m. 
eviblbly f<!!Ulres proper acrutiny of variouc applications for ilDpQrt ~ 
In. grantipg li<>:nces for ilnports, the authority has to keep in vi• viii.,_.. 
factors which may have impact on import. of other items of. relati...,. 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 3 S.C.R. 
A\ 
gre.ater priority in the larger interests of the overall economy of the country 
which must be the supreme consideration. Moreover, in view of s. 3(l)(a) 
of the Imports and Expdrts Control Act, 1947 and cl. 6(1)(a) of the 
Imports (Control) Order, 1955, an applicant has no vested right to an 
import licence in terms of the policy in force at the time di his applica.-
tion. f9 B-E; 16 B-E; 17 A-Hl 
The respondent's application included household utensils which was 
not a priority item and since clarification Was asked for ... the application 
B 
could not be disposed of during 1968-69. The details of end-products 
furnished by him contained items which were non-priority end-products 
and hence. the application had to be kept pending until completion of 
its examination, and the time taken for such examination was not un-
reasonable. fl6 Jl..Hl 
· 
Glass Chaions .Importers and Users Assn. v. Union of India, [1962] 
1 S.C.R. 866, referred to. 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1053 Of 
1971. 
'• 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 1971 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 120 
Of 1971. 
D 
V. S. Desai, M. C. Bhandere and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. 
L. M. Singvi, A. V. Rangam, R. Krishnamoorlhi rund A. Sub-
hashini, for respondent No. 1. 
M. V. Goswami, for the intervener. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.